Judgment L.P.N. Shahdeo, J. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order, dated 21.3.1985, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Giridih, in a complaint case in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, in the following circumstances: 2. It appears that the complainant opposite party Sri S.P. Bakshi is a practising Advocate at Giridih who used to conduct cases of Jain Swetambar Society since many years. It is alleged that on 12.2.1985 a petition was filed by the petitioner in Title Suit No. 48 of 1981 making defamatory statements which had harmed the reputation of the complainant-Opposite party. It appears that thereafter, an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had started and on receipt of the report, cognizance of the offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was taken and the petitioner was summoned to appear, which is being challenged in this application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Sahay, has submitted that mere reading of paragraph 3 of the complaint petition (Annexure 1) does not make out any case of defamation, whereas learned counsel Mr. P.S. Dayal appearing for the opposite party submitted that mere reading of paragraph 5 of the complaint petition definetely makes out, prima facie, a case of defamation, which is fit for trial. That relevant petition giving rise to the complaint case is Annexure 1 in the complaint petition filed before the lower court. 4. Annexure 1 is a petition filed in Title Suit No. 48 of 1981. In paragraph 3 it has been stated that in pursuance to the award the case was to be withdrawn and so Sri S.P. Bakshi. Advocate had brought a typed petition before the petitioner for his signature, to be filed in court for withdrawal of the suit and Sri Bakshi advised the petitioner that even though he was not a member of the Trust, he was competent to sign the withdrawal petition and under the advice of Sri Bakshi the petitioner put his signature on the withdrawal petition which was filed on 7.1.1985. 5. Paragraph 5 of the same petition is quoted below:- "5. 5. Paragraph 5 of the same petition is quoted below:- "5. That, the petitioner hail further learnt that he is being represented in the case one by Sri Jadu Nath Prasad Advocate, but the petitioner neither knew him 'nor he ever engaged him. The petitioner gave certain Vakalatnama Signed by him to Sri S.P, Baxi to be filed in other case and one of such Vakalatnama might have been used by Sri S.P. Baxi, for filing the same through Jadu Nath Prasad in the present suit". This shows that the petitioner had doubted the reliability and integrity of his counsel Sri Bakshi and states that he had given certain signatures on the Vakalatnama to Sri Bakshi, to be filed, in some cases and one of that Vakalatnam might have been used by Sri S.P. Bakshi by filing the same through Sri Jadu Nath Prasad in the present case. 6. The aforesaid statement perse makes out a case for trial. If a lawyer is accused of that signed Vahlatnama, given to him to be filed in some case, which was used in other case as a result of which that case ended in compromise, certainly amounts to pointing out finger on his professional system of working. This prima facie amounts to defamatory statement and, therefore, the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot be said to be bad in Jaw. The statement contained in paragraph 3 should be read along with the statement made in paragraph 5 and if both taken together, it is sufficient to make out a case for trial against the petitioner. 7. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made, I am satisfied that no case is made of it’s for interference by this Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Consequently, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.